"Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer"  wrote in
news:14435$POL_DISORDER{at}JamNNTPd:

 RS>> Well, since Stan as usual is unwilling to do any actual research
 EH>   to back RS> his claim, (like when he described Walter Cronkite as a
 EH>   loud drunk,) and RS> Ed is simply too lazy to do any research
 EH>   either, I did 20 seconds of RS> research, (by typing "Obama signing
 EH>   statement" into Google, and I found RS> the article below.

 EH> You blatant liar! I gave you the link to that article!

If you did, I didn't notice it.

 RS>> I don't like it that this attachment was jammed into a war
 EH>   spending RS> bill, and I especially don't like it that Obama has
 EH>   said he doesn't have RS> to abide by this attachment.

 EH> Uh huh...

 RS>> He could have simply demanded the attachment be removed, the
 EH>   same way he RS> did with the F-22 pork spending attachment.

 EH> You best set your little buddy Wayne straight.

He's not my "little buddy."
I'm waiting for him to go off his nut again.

 RS>> Democrats irked by Obama signing statement

 EH> The very same article I cited to you.

Ok, my goof.
So why didn't the original complainer of Obama's signing statement, give
even a clue as to what he was talking about?

--- Xnews/5.04.25